Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:58:07 AM

Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

I'm curious, how would you adapt that to B/X?

I'd probably just use Changeling rather than try to shoehorn parts of the system into BX. Changeling, when you use just the fae lands, seems to be the best basis for doing a straight up fantasy setting. Take that and use BX's Karameikos and Known World, (not Mystara, or at least not the overcrowded mess Mystara became) as the setting and it would probably work fairly well.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 09:13:30 AM
In the name of de-escalation il admit to being wrong by coming into the thread with hyperbole and a lack of more specific arguments. It was inflammatory.

In the name of de-escalation, I admit that I tend to speak dismissively and derisively of the OSR/Old/Basic, etc. D&D in general. And that that doesn't help the tone of the discussion.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:36:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Those are just personal attacks combined with internet telepathy.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:44:28 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:36:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Those are just personal attacks combined with internet telepathy.

Yes, that's what I'm saying about your posts.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:12 AMI respect any attempt at deescalation.

So my complaints towards you in a laid out fashion:
You said Im a shit-poster. Being overtly negative, even hyperbolic, is not being a shit-poster. I didn't come here to just get a rise out of OSR fans. A shit-poster ultimately doesn't care about the conversation as long as it gets a rise.
You compared me TPB (whatever that is) because when I defended myself against accusations of shit-posting, you said that I was saying that I was hiding behind 'the truth' as an excuse to be mean.
You said Im a liar because I must HATE OSR....When I had mentioned systems I liked in the OSR and that I liked the OSR spirit. My beef mechanically is with 'OSD&D' and with the community it has around it in terms of support.

For all your talks about disliking assumptions about yourself, and how clear everybody else must be, you sure liked putting words in my mouth.

Talks about definitions happened because I brought up defensiveness, and instead of engaging with my point (which would have still been accurate if OD&D stood for Original), it was nitpicking about terminology, to which I still aquiesed too. And then agreed to the community having the right to have its own nomenclature. But I disagreed it was easy to follow because things get lumped together. And you did lump my dislike of 'OSD&D' with dislike of OSR so I feel justified in some of that.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AMWhich fans? All of them? Or just the worst? It's easier to do something badly than it is to do something well. So you can always find some asshole to complain about. It's a cheap shot not indicative of anything of substance. A straw man is still a straw man even if you can point to a living Avatar if that Avatar is not really representative of the broader whole.

The fans I have interacted with. Thats all I can speak from personal experience. Also in terms of fallacy its cherry-picking, not strawmanning.

QuoteThe thing is, I have to trust the source. I have to believe your critique is in good faith. I have to believe that you actually understand my perspective. I have to find your discourse honest.

Fair enough, that is reasonable.

QuoteSo I have to ask, how do you know people who reject your critiques are actually rejecting criticism itself? Are you sure you haven't given them a reason not to trust you? Do you have any objective measure for knowing when your own criticisms are off?

But this isn't. We are not conducting a scientific examination of a proposed foriegn chemical companies tire replacement here. We are having a discussion of a thing for fun. I don't have to prove myself to an informal communit to have the right to dicuss things about it.

QuoteEither it doesn't make any sense at all. Or maybe it's just that I am incapable of making sense of it. What test do you have for distinguishing the two?

QuoteIt's especially awkward when it comes to a very popular game like D&D. You are far from alone in calling the core system unintuitive. But there are far, far more people who seem to have no trouble at all playing it just fine and having fun. At what point do we say the children aren't wrong, you're just out of touch?

OK now this is turning into an appeal to a majority and snide remarks towards me.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 10:02:55 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:44:28 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:36:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Those are just personal attacks combined with internet telepathy.

Yes, that's what I'm saying about your posts.

Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 10:04:11 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:39:14 AMIn the name of de-escalation, I admit that I tend to speak dismissively and derisively of the OSR/Old/Basic, etc. D&D in general. And that that doesn't help the tone of the discussion.

So my complaints towards you in a laid out fashion:
You said Im a shit-poster. Being overtly negative, even hyperbolic, is not being a shit-poster. I didn't come here to just get a rise out of OSR fans. A shit-poster ultimately doesn't care about the conversation as long as it gets a rise.
You compared me TPB (whatever that is) because when I defended myself against accusations of shit-posting, you said that I was saying that I was hiding behind 'the truth' as an excuse to be mean.
You said Im a liar because I must HATE OSR....When I had mentioned systems I liked in the OSR and that I liked the OSR spirit. My beef mechanically is with 'OSD&D' and with the community it has around it in terms of support.

For all your talks about disliking assumptions about yourself, and how clear everybody else must be, you sure liked putting words in my mouth.

Talks about definitions happened because I brought up defensiveness, and instead of engaging with my point (which would have still been accurate if OD&D stood for Original), it was nitpicking about terminology, to which I still aquiesed too. And then agreed to the community having the right to have its own nomenclature. But I disagreed it was easy to follow because things get lumped together. And you did lump my dislike of 'OSD&D' with dislike of OSR so I feel justified in some of that.

Is this addressed at me? The mangled quote makes it hard to reply to any specific claims, because they're unsourced.

A few general statements:

VisionStorm was the primary one at fault. You mostly just echoed a few things.

I have no problem with negativity. Say you don't like old school D&D? Fine. Criticize it? I'll probably jump in, I've got a long list. Post something that shows you don't know what you're talking about? (This isn't referring to anything you said, but it is why I clarified terminology VS was misuing.) Then I'll explain what you're missing. Make a statement about how the people involved with the OSR as a whole, or fans of the games, have this list of negative traits? That's a problem, because that's a group attack. Which is just a nice way of saying it's a personal attack on everyone who's a member of that group, and on anyone who might think you might think they're a member of the group.

I stand by the shitposter comment, because jumping into a thread just to say that, or supporting someone who says that, is shitposting. If you think I mistakenly ascribed something to you that VS said, feel free to provide a link. I'm not going to go back and double-check everything, because I have no interest in re-reading this whole thread.

Similarly, if you think I'm putting words in your mouth, provide a link. It's possible I made a mistake, but I'm usually pretty careful to avoid that, because it's one of the things I detest.

TBP is The Big Purple. They have a d20 forum, which was very pro-4e. If anyone criticized 4e, even in the mildest possible way, they were dogpiled, and mod action soon followed. This even happened to people who asked innocent questions. So anything negative about 4e was incredibly rare. You could go 100s of pages without seeing anything. Conversely, maybe 1 in 50 threads was about old school games. But in nearly every old school thread, 4e fans jumped in to attack the old school games. They made all sorts of generalizations, including insinuations about the people involved. But they always portrayed themselves as the victims. According to them, it was the mean OSR people who were attacking them. The only person ever sanctions for this did it relentlessly, for years, and even then was allowed back and continued the same pattern, except slightly more disguised. And they defended their criticisms as "just telling the truth", while any criticism of their favorite game was trolling and hate. That's the reference I was making.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:40:58 AM
Is this addressed at me? The mangled quote makes it hard to reply to any specific claims, because they're unsourced.

Im sorry I did misqoute, but boy howdy I think its pretty entitled to insult me without direct qoutes, and then demand direct qoutes to apologize.

I find it annoying that you demand for specific verbiage to be followed when its convenient for you, but when you insult people, it means what you want it to mean. I posted BEFORE Visionstorm. The only time I agreed with him directly, is that your OSR verbiage is unclear.

And I don't care that 10+ years ago 4e people where nasty, because OSR people are happy to be nasty right back 10+ years later at neutral discussions of the topic.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 03:29:25 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 02:26:00 PMSo there nothing to apologize for if you like a version that has things spelled out.

Well I think thats the most unflattering way of putting it I suppose.

Nothing flattering or unflattering about it. I played and refereed for GURPS for 20 years as my main system. In GURPS if you have all the books just about anything you do as a character is spelled out if you know where to look Likewise my Majestic Fantasy RPG has things spelled out far more than the Swords & Wizardry system I based it on.

Level of detail and presentation are valid preferences. The dirty secret of 3 LBB only OD&D and other classic editions is that if one runs it long enough the result is as detailed of a system as most. The difference is that the added detail is the result of all the rulings one made over the years. Hopefully the referee is a good coach or teacher or has written it down. Otherwise the result will be off-putting to most players as they feel that there are gotchas all over the place as the referee doesn't explain important stuff.

  Is GURPS considered OSR?  The rules came out mid 80's, and IME can replicate running some of those 80's modules very well (and I liked several of those a lot, since they left a good deal of room for the DM to adjust and ad lib where needed, modern modules/adventures almost seem like a train on a track).  I always liked OSR feel and ambiance, but for me, the rules and their variations from D&D just do not do it for me, at least as a GM, I can play any system, but if I run it I like GURPS the most by a long ways.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 10:50:03 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:40:58 AM
Is this addressed at me? The mangled quote makes it hard to reply to any specific claims, because they're unsourced.

Im sorry I did misqoute, but boy howdy I think its pretty entitled to insult me without direct qoutes, and then demand direct qoutes to apologize.

I find it annoying that you demand for specific verbiage to be followed when its convenient for you, but when you insult people, it means what you want it to mean. I posted BEFORE Visionstorm. The only time I agreed with him directly, is that your OSR verbiage is unclear.

And I don't care that 10+ years ago 4e people where nasty, because OSR people are happy to be nasty right back 10+ years later at neutral discussions of the topic.

I respond to your statements once. If you think there was a problem, then it is your responsibility to at least point to what you're talking about. I have no interest in re-reading the entire thread, and then guessing which part you have a problem with.

And if you want to have a civil discussion, drop the entitled shit or this bullshit about insults. Because the post you just responded to was completely without a single insult directed your way. And no, the part where I talked about the misquote wasn't an insult. I just wanted to make sure you were addressing me, and to point out that it made it impossible for me  to address specific claims. And I did so in a neutral and nonjudgmental way.

TBP was just a comparison.

Quote from: oggsmash on March 01, 2022, 11:11:12 AMIs GURPS considered OSR? The rules came out mid 80's, and IME can replicate running some of those 80's modules very well (and I liked several of those a lot, since they left a good deal of room for the DM to adjust and ad lib where needed, modern modules/adventures almost seem like a train on a track).  I always liked OSR feel and ambiance, but for me, the rules and their variations from D&D just do not do it for me, at least as a GM, I can play any system, but if I run it I like GURPS the most by a long ways.

Not really, no. There are some really broad definitions that include other games, but 99.99% of the time when people say OSR they mean old school D&D and its derivatives. Also, GURPS is actively supported and published, which makes the R in OSR less applicable.

But it is kin in spirit, and a lot of people in the OSR wish there was more focus on other games, so you'll generally find a receptive audience.

I'd be interested in a discussion of running GURPS with old school D&D modules. The gritty and realistic feel of GURPS could work well with a lot of the dungeons, especially the more artificial or tournament style modules like Inverness. Plus the first edition of GURPS Fantasy was clearly inspired by, while also being a reaction against, the D&D magic system. Which might lead to interesting consequences. Spell points instead of Vancian slots, fireballs are much smaller, powerstones instead of scrolls, and so on.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:11:13 AM
Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

No, that's me pointing out your complete lack of self awareness.

Me admitting my demonstrable flaws does not equal me submitting to your absurd expectations on how other people communicate* or your willfully wrongheaded interpretations of things that other people often didn't even say, but are merely your assumptions about their intent or deeper implications of what they said or didn't say, or who they quoted, etc. It just means that unlike you, I am capable of recognizing my flaws.

*Expectations that as Banshee points out you consistently fail to apply to yourself (because they're unachievable and absurd).

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 11:42:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:11:13 AM
Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

No, that's me pointing out your complete lack of self awareness.

Me admitting my demonstrable flaws does not equal me submitting to your absurd expectations on how other people communicate* or your willfully wrongheaded interpretations of things that other people often didn't even say, but are merely your assumptions about their intent or deeper implications of what they said or didn't say, or who they quoted, etc. It just means that unlike you, I am capable of recognizing my flaws.

*Expectations that as Banshee points out you consistently fail to apply to yourself (because they're unachievable and absurd).

I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

You're a despicable human being.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 11:44:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 11:42:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:11:13 AM
Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

No, that's me pointing out your complete lack of self awareness.

Me admitting my demonstrable flaws does not equal me submitting to your absurd expectations on how other people communicate* or your willfully wrongheaded interpretations of things that other people often didn't even say, but are merely your assumptions about their intent or deeper implications of what they said or didn't say, or who they quoted, etc. It just means that unlike you, I am capable of recognizing my flaws.

*Expectations that as Banshee points out you consistently fail to apply to yourself (because they're unachievable and absurd).

I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

You're a despicable human being.

No, you're just the one who loses their shit cuz somebody quoted somebody else that happened to have responded to you in other to make some other point. Then spend two pages trying to justify attacking them for implied attacks that weren't even expressed in their post. And are such a narcissistic un self-aware idiot that you refuse to recognize that even as you demand everyone else recognize their flaws, both real and imaginary that you projected onto them.